Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The concept of faith
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 116 (231963)
08-10-2005 3:25 PM


I would argue that (1)the concept of religious faith is irrational, if by faith we mean belief in a set of unproven doctrines, such as, say, the belief in the Apostles' Creed. There we have a set of doctrines that cannot be proven and that, moreover, make no attempt at all to limit the assumptions. When I hear people say, I believe "on faith," and there's an end to it, I am amazed. This cannot be, I am thinking.
I would also argue that (2)people never believe "on faith." They believe because they think they have a good reason or reasons to do so, even if that reason is not acceptable to others. A "reason" is not faith.
One might, for example, have good circumstantial reasons to believe that someone loves him or her, even though there's no way to put a searchlight into their minds to prove it scientifically. Nonetheless it's not a matter of faith. One might believe that someone loves them because (a)they said so; (b)they have acted lovingly (c)they have done so for several or many years, (d) there is a lack of negative evidence--i.e., they have never done anything that suggests they don't love you. Does it require "faith" to beleive in such circumstances? I would say no: the belief is rational, although not certain. It could be that religious belief is of this nature, in the sense that there are reasons but the reasons are internal.
Topic Adjustment
This topic has been authorized a secondary path starting at Message 65.
We were talking about whether faith is a moral matter. Now, according to traditional Christianity, one must believe in a set of docrines (summed up, I believe, in the Athanasian Creed) in order to be saved.
AdminPD (5/12/06)
This message has been edited by AdminPD, 05-12-2006 01:34 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 9:29 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 17 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-12-2005 6:25 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 43 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-14-2005 7:32 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 05-12-2006 9:32 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 63 by AdminPD, posted 05-12-2006 11:34 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 116 (232523)
08-12-2005 7:49 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 3 of 116 (232555)
08-12-2005 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
08-10-2005 3:25 PM


The whole idea of faith really originated with Biblical Christianity. No other religion asked its followers to believe in anything on mere testimony before Christ asked us to repent and believe His gospel. Fundamentally faith means believing God, believing that He is and believing what the Bible reports Him to have said and done. The Bible is considered to be the accurate record of His dealings with particular people chosen for the purpose of revealing these things, His being, His character, His plans as well as OUR nature and condition and many other things. In other words we are asked to put our faith in very specific described phenomena as facts. There's nothing nebulous about them. There's no leap of faith involved. Either you believe these Biblical descriptions based on what you consider to be good reasons to believe them, or you don't based on what you consider to be inadequate reasons for believing them.
"Faith is the substance of things unseen" says the Book of Hebrews. That means that you put your faith in things you cannot see or prove in any way, in genuine belief that they are all as real as promised, based completely on the testimony of God Himself as reported in the Bible, and the people He sent to be witnesses of those things.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-12-2005 09:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 08-10-2005 3:25 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 08-12-2005 9:34 AM Faith has replied
 Message 6 by Ben!, posted 08-12-2005 10:03 AM Faith has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 116 (232559)
08-12-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
08-12-2005 9:29 AM


Reasons
Either you believe these Biblical descriptions based on what you consider to be good reasons to believe them, or you don't based on what you consider to be inadequate reasons for believing them.
Yes, but what are the "good reasons"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 9:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 9:54 AM robinrohan has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 116 (232565)
08-12-2005 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by robinrohan
08-12-2005 9:34 AM


Re: Reasons
Mostly that the reporters sound honest and their reports sound credible, the tone, the use of circumstantial details, elements that give the feel of reality. Primarily it's an "I believe YOU" rather than an "I believe this or that," secondarily I believe this or that because I believe the reporter(s). I've argued this before on the threads about the importance of witnesses in Biblical Christianity.
Anyone who starts by judging its content is going about it backwards, as the apostle Thomas did, refusing to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead because it was just too hard to believe that. Jesus makes it clear that it would have been better if he'd simply believed those who had told him about it without having to see it for himself. {Jhn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.} First you have to believe the tellers of the story are honest credible people so then you will believe their reports.
Faith is faith in God based on those reports. The Bible points you to God who, because of your belief, is then real to you in such a way that you enter into a relationship with Him based on faith.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-12-2005 09:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 08-12-2005 9:34 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by robinrohan, posted 08-12-2005 3:36 PM Faith has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 6 of 116 (232568)
08-12-2005 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
08-12-2005 9:29 AM


There's nothing nebulous about them. There's no leap of faith involved. Either you believe these Biblical descriptions based on what you consider to be good reasons to believe them, or you don't based on what you consider to be inadequate reasons for believing them.
Does this have to be true? Maybe it's true for you, but I don't see that it has to be true for everybody.
And a consequence of that view of faith seems to be that, from the moment you have a question until the moment you get a "satisfactory" answer (either from yourself or somebody else), you lose your faith. But that doesn't seem to match the reality--while you can't answer the question, you still have faith. At least, that's the sense I get.
I'd really appreciate to know your thoughts. And I'd REALLY appreciate if you can think about what things are true for Faith vs. what things MUST be true for all believers, when answering. Because for me, I'm having trouble understanding that aspect of your post.
Thanks!
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 9:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 10:17 AM Ben! has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 7 of 116 (232573)
08-12-2005 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Ben!
08-12-2005 10:03 AM


Not really sure what your question is. Maybe this answers it: No, I didn't mean to make it a totally flat either/or, as I don't think anybody believes all of it at first encounter and we all do have to grow into it. But I think it does come down to that either/or overall even as a process. That is, belief will lead to more belief if that's where you start and if you act or live on the basis of whatever amount of belief you have, and unbelief will lead to more unbelief. But I may not really be understanding your question.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-12-2005 02:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Ben!, posted 08-12-2005 10:03 AM Ben! has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 116 (232703)
08-12-2005 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
08-12-2005 9:54 AM


Re: Reasons
Mostly that the reporters sound honest and their reports sound credible, the tone, the use of circumstantial details, elements that give the feel of reality. Primarily it's an "I believe YOU" rather than an "I believe this or that," secondarily I believe this or that because I believe the reporter(s). I've argued this before on the threads about the importance of witnesses in Biblical Christianity.
But I think what you are saying is in agreement with what I said. One does not believe some doctrine on pure "faith," which sounds like a mere whim--believing something for no reason. One always has reasons.
However, if we move from Christianity for a moment to a more general belief--theism--then the reasons you have given change, do they not?
I'm not sure, but I think this is pointing toward Ben's point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 9:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 4:05 PM robinrohan has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 9 of 116 (232720)
08-12-2005 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by robinrohan
08-12-2005 3:36 PM


Re: Reasons
But I think what you are saying is in agreement with what I said. One does not believe some doctrine on pure "faith," which sounds like a mere whim--believing something for no reason. One always has reasons.
Yes, I should have acknowledged that I'm agreeing with you about that. You've made that point before.
However, if we move from Christianity for a moment to a more general belief--theism--then the reasons you have given change, do they not?
I'm sure they do. I can't speak for other belief systems, I was only addressing what faith means in the context of Biblical Christianity, which is where the idea of faith for salvation began, faith in the gospel, faith in Christ, faith in His word. I THINK my reasons for belief in Biblical Christianity have universality, but it would remain to be seen as other Bible believers contribute their answers.
{Edit: I've never understood theists or people who believe in God based on some sort of intuition or the wonders of the Creation myself without specific revelation. I had to believe what someone said about things they claimed to have seen and experienced and "handled" as the Bible witnesses put it, and about what God actually said to them, that I hadn't myself experienced, that is, revelation of things unseen as reported by the mouths of witnesses. I think this is really what "belief" means in Christianity as I said. Believing testimony.
I'm not sure, but I think this is pointing toward Ben's point.
I'm not sure either. I wasn't clear what he was asking/saying.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-12-2005 04:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by robinrohan, posted 08-12-2005 3:36 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by robinrohan, posted 08-12-2005 4:13 PM Faith has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 116 (232724)
08-12-2005 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
08-12-2005 4:05 PM


Re: Reasons
I'm sure they do. I can't speak for other belief systems
Some people move from theism to Christianity (a la C. S. Lewis), but I suppose that is not the usual path. My familiarity with such processes is bookish, not based on experience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 4:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 4:44 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 116 (232734)
08-12-2005 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by robinrohan
08-12-2005 4:13 PM


Re: Reasons
Maybe I misread Lewis but I thought he was an atheist before he became a Christian. But of course I'm sure it's possible to move from theism -- or from any position whatever -- to Biblical Christianity, or any other direction for that matter.
As for your "bookish" "familiarity with such processes," to a great extent I became a believer by reading about other people's religious experiences or what they believed and how they came to believe it-- including the believers in Eastern religions and all kinds of occultic stuff. I believe they were all telling the truth about their experiences though I ended up accepting only the Biblical explanation of all of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by robinrohan, posted 08-12-2005 4:13 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by randman, posted 08-13-2005 4:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Highlander
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 116 (232741)
08-12-2005 5:13 PM


Everyone has faith, including atheists
Logic and reason are limited and only as good as the premises upon which they are built.
Faith, according to the apostle Paul is 'the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things unseen'.
Is the idea that life arose by chance testable science or is it a statement of faith? Is there any literature anywhere that plausibly describes how the first cell walls formed or how they first biomolecular machines came into existence? Is it even possible to design an experiment that removes the designer and proves this notion?
Anyone who thinks like arose by purely naturalistic means believes so on faith. Those who sneer at theistic faith seem to be blind to their own faith.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 08-12-2005 5:24 PM Highlander has not replied
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2005 5:30 PM Highlander has replied
 Message 16 by Rahvin, posted 08-12-2005 5:34 PM Highlander has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 116 (232747)
08-12-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Highlander
08-12-2005 5:13 PM


Re: Everyone has faith, including atheists
quote:
Is there any literature anywhere that plausibly describes how the first cell walls formed or how they first biomolecular machines came into existence? Is it even possible to design an experiment that removes the designer and proves this notion?
Yes, plausible scenarios have been and are being proposed. These scenarios are being tested in scientific laboratories. Right now the science of abiogenesis is still in its infancy so there are a lot of gaps in our knowledge, but more and more is being learned as time goes on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Highlander, posted 08-12-2005 5:13 PM Highlander has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Physrho, posted 08-31-2005 1:25 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 116 (232751)
08-12-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Highlander
08-12-2005 5:13 PM


Re: Everyone has faith, including atheists
Is it even possible to design an experiment that removes the designer and proves this notion?
Surely you believe it's possible to design an experiment that employs only natural processes? It seems to me that all you have to do is not stick your hands in the middle and muck about with it.
If you can't doesn't that basically send all science down the shitter?
Here, here's a practical example. I'm out in the field these days helping with tent-capture experiments in agricultural entomology. Now, are you telling me that our results won't apply to the unsupervised world simply because we, the intelligent "designers" of the experiment, were out there watching it? That somehow, the mere presence of our intelligence gives different results?
If so that's something you need to tell our professor. I can drop you his email, I guess, but first I need to know exactly how you arrived at such a... suspect conclusion.
(Edited for more acceptable word choice.)
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-12-2005 05:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Highlander, posted 08-12-2005 5:13 PM Highlander has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by AdminNosy, posted 08-12-2005 5:33 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 18 by Highlander, posted 08-12-2005 6:44 PM crashfrog has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 15 of 116 (232756)
08-12-2005 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
08-12-2005 5:30 PM


remove the word that isn't necessary!
Crash, the word "stupid" does nothing to further the discussion.
You have permission to actually delete it. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2005 5:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024